Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sheriff uses food stamp applications to find people with felony warrants

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:21 AM
Original message
Sheriff uses food stamp applications to find people with felony warrants
Seven Jackson County law enforcement agencies swept the metro area today to serve 300 felony warrants.

Many people on the list were found with the help of the Department of Agriculture. Their applications for food stamps led police to their whereabouts, according to Sgt. Lane T. Eitel, of the Jackson County Sheriffs Department.

Were not targeting people because theyre on food stamps, Eitel said. Its just another way to find people, thats all.

Labeled Operation Talon the sweep was hosted by the Jackson County Sheriffs Department and will serve warrants in the police jurisdictions of Kansas City, Independence, Grandview, Raytown, Lees Summit, Blue Springs and Grain Valley.

(The warrants) are for everything, Eitel said, probation violation, forgery like bad checks, drug warrants, stealing.



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/10/2141756/sheriff-us...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. "felony warrants"
They could really find some crooks if they went after everybody that sends money to the RNC!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
77. Ding!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
246. Stripping it down to the nugget
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 03:37 PM by SoCalDem
Once found & stripped of food stamp eligibility, those "caught" will no longer "need" food stamps because they will have all food provided for them :) Right pocket-left pocket
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. oh lovely
can't wait to read DUers comment about how if you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't worry about your civil rights. And how if you are poor you don't deserve any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. probation violation, forgery like bad checks, drug warrants, stealing.
Felons use you and me as their victims. Four cops were killed in Oakland by a criminal who was violating his probation. Just that morning he raped a woman so when a cop stopped him for a routine traffic violation he shot the cop dead. That's just one example. Later that day he went out in a blaze of fire in a shoot out with the cops.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. do you want the local law enforcement looking through your food stamp app?
it's not about the bad guys, it's about YOUR rights

how many of them are you willing to give up in the name of "safety"? Maybe they should be able to go through everybody's medical records, just in case there is a criminal seeking treatment for something - then they can apprehend him/her when they show up for the next appointment...

Here in AZ they photo and fingerprint you if you apply for food stamps - just getting you used to criminal proceedings, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #21
34. You miss the point by a mile
They aren't apprehending people who aren't felons. Can you show me where the rules of apprehending felons book is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #34
50. can you answer my question?
do you have any problem with law enforcement going through your app?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #50
73. Who said law enforcement is going through your app?
It is easy to do a simple computer search of the names of all the applicants against a database of fugitives, and returning addresses when their is a hit. I highly doubt they have any interest in thumbing through applications and looking for anything more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #73
79. you doubt?
I'm sure your doubts about what kind of snooping law enforcement does will protect all of our privacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #50
151. i dont
its one government agency using public data from another
the law says my tax records are confidential but all else is common info
i have no problems with felons going to jail or the govt using any means allowed to catch them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #151
160. I have no problems with felons going to jail (for the sake of this discussion
- drug laws are another topic) but I do have a problem with law enforcement going through poor peoples' personal information while allegedly looking for said felons. see the difference in perspective? in this country we risk letting some "guilty" go while protecting the innocent at all costs. At least that is the founding ideal.

we also don't preventively jail people for what they MIGHT do. (again ideally) so lumping all felons or potential felons into the mad rapist/murderer category is just another fear-based talking point.

again, would you want Joe Arpiao reading the information in your food stamp application? what about the rest of us? why don't you go ahead and post it here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SecularMotion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #151
172. Of course the government would never use our tax records
We have the advantage because the government needs us to file and pay taxes. They wouldn't want to discourage anyone from filing.

Now when people are disadvantaged and need the government, well that's a different story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #172
176. Not to mention that those would help them find white-collar felons
can't have that, now, can we? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #34
53. so it's okay to starve families because of one person's possible problems?
Or do you think it's JUST single people who apply for food stamps?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #53
57. Can you point to where the families starve?
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 09:58 AM by msanthrope
I didn't read that the food stamps to the families themselves were denied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #57
67. Gee if you had a felony warrant and your kids were hungry, would you apply for food stamps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #67
96. If I had kids to support I'd do my best not to do anything that would get
me and/or them taken away because I was a criminal who might spend more than a year in prison.

Good parenting and all that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #96
102. How dare you!!!
This just makes way too much sense...



;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #67
231. Actually, I'd turn myself in, and then my family could apply
without problem.

I wasn't raised to avoid due process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #53
66. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SecularMotion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #5
31. So everyone getting food stamps with a felony warrant
is a potential rapist and murderer and must be tracked down at all costs?

Gotcha.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. You're the one using a broad brush. I used a factual example
Where is the example of cops apprehending innocent people? And where are the rules as to how cops are supposed to catch felons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SecularMotion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. You used a worse case scenario, an extreme one at that
to unfairly smear the poor and disadvantaged who have made mistakes in their lives.

I'm not the one with the broad brush here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #40
47. I used a factual example of a felon who had violated parole
If you don't see that then I give up. Bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SecularMotion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Do you know the difference between "factual example" and "worse case scenario"?


If you don't, then I give up. Bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #5
64. Were they on food stamps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #64
82. zing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supply Side Jesus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
287. but but but but but
A governmental entity is using governmental obtained data to find warrants!!! POLICE STATE! POLICE STATE! POLICE STATE!

fuck the victims, i'm sure they were asking for it.

I'll never understand the criminal enabling attitude which has saturated DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. These are for felony warrants, not speeding tickets..
..I don't have a problem with it..Flame away..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
55. Me neither
Another tool in getting felons off the streets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. Felons have no RIGHT to avoid incarceration.
Please point that right out to me because I seemed to miss it last time I read the bill of rights.

A felon (by definition) has already received due process and was convicted of a crime. A crime that they for one reason or another avoided incarceration for. The Police have a duty to located said people with a felony arrest warrant.

Comparing list of wanted people against any database (phonebook, DMV, unemployment benefits) would be a smart and valid method to determine the LOCATION of these wanted persons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. do non-felons have any right to NOT having police look through their data?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #23
35. Unlikely. I guess it is a matter for the courts but pesonally I don't think so.
One can't submit a document to the government and then claim an expectation of privacy from that very same government.

Police routinely use other datasets to determine locations of wanted persons (tax returns, dmv records, phone books, unemployment insurance, etc).

Another example if NICS firearm checks. When you purchase a firearm a background check (including outstanding warrants) is run. If you fail (even due to a technical problem) the account is flagged. Local Police will certainly investigate. You may find it hard to believe but Police do find and arrest wanted felons trying to buy a gun which requires a background check. Not many but they do catch some.

Still it would be an interesting case although I doubt those suing would prevail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #23
39. Do you have a driver's license?
If you do you're in the records. As you are if you have car insurance, a Social Security number or any of a dozen databases, including credit card companies, banks and even your local gas company. Your civil rights are already violated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #39
49. Just wondering...
how having one's information in a dozen or more databases violates his civil rights?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #39
51. drivers licenses are a special case, and others have and expectation of privacy
jesus, I can't even get info about the natural gas usage in my house because the account is in somebody elses name!

But aside from that, are you really saying we shouldn't care if rights are violated because some already are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #51
60. What rights are violated by this apparently effective tool for locating people with felony warrants?
If you don't have a felony warrant and you apply for food stamps you are not going to be arrested. What's the beef?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. like I said in reply #2
if you aren't doing anything wrong why should you care about what the police do?


I was expecting your "argument"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #63
72. that's trite, but inapplicable.
If you don't have a felony warrant, there is no problem with applying for food stamps. If you DO have a felony warrant, you have bigger problems than trying to get food stamps. Meals are served in jails, so hunger is not an issue.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #72
83. my entire point is about the rights of the rest of us
not the individual felon

what expectation do the NONfelons have to any privacy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #83
92. when you apply to the govt for aid, you cannot expect privacy FROM that govt.
This is not rocket surgery. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #92
94. bullshit
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 10:55 AM by Kali
there is plenty of examples of expectation of privacy there are documents inserted in every mailing you get from various agencies/segments of govt relating to privacy

and this is about a local sheriff having access to a federal social service agency

do you REALLY think that is a good idea?

I bet one of our local sheriffs - Mr. Arpaio up in Maricopa county is liking this story quite a bit. Have you heard about his abuses of power?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #94
140. On this I would agree.
Someone who is on public support still enjoys the rights of not having to allow the cops in their home without a warrant, etc.

But public support is just that...public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #94
155. where in that article does it say US department of Agriculture?no where
you have nothing to show any federal involvement in this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #155
163. uh, food stamps are USDA
administered locally but it is a federal program

or am I misunderstanding your post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #163
188. Guess what else is administered locally but gets federal dollars?
THE LOCAL SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #188
190. what is your point?
the poster I was responding to made a strange statement about nothing in the article saying USDA (although it is right there in the OP)

so what if the sheriff gets funding from the feds (not all do)? what does that have to do with them snooping through food stamp applications? are you implying anybody that touches federal money has a right to your personal info???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #188
191. Really, kali? My point is that wanted felons should not get food stamps
but SHOULD get picked up by the authorities and sent to jail. Why is that so hard to understand?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #191
193. what is so hard about understanding that the rest of the food stamp applicants/recipients
don't deserve having the local sheriff snooping through their personal information just for the slight chance of catching a potential felon.

Just how many do you think are really on food stamps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #193
194. You clearly do not understand how this works.
Name A appears on "felony warrant" list. Name A also appears on "food stamp applicant" list. Names match, it is investigated. No name match? No investigation. It's not like someone from the sheriff's office goes to the county aid office and pores over each and every application.

Why are you so insistent that people with felony warrants should be protected from justice AND given free food? I'm all for giving them free food - in jail where they belong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #194
196. I do not think the sheriff should have access to the list of food stamp applicants.
simple as that. Not insisting anything whatsoever about felons or free food for them or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #196
198. What if the sheriff doesn't have that access?
What if the aid office is required to match names with a list of felony warrants they receive? Would that approach be kosher?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #198
203. it sounds a bit better
in fact I think they already do something like that, so it may be a moot point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #203
226. I can agree to this as well.
See...just sharing.

Group hug!

:grouphug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #193
283. Jeeez, you keep spouting this...
do you think that food stamp applicants info is kept on index cards which must be individually searched? These things are kept on searchable databases nowadays...you put in a name and either get a match or a no match...this is really simple.You do know that police have used this for decades? That police also use social services, credit reports, utility records, telephone traps, scams, tricks, and lies to catch wanted people, no? This has been going on...forever, welcome to the world as it's always been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #23
42. You make a good point but then again
When someone is pulled over on a traffic stop the police run their ID through the computer, starting with the license plate number of the car.

Presumably the vast majority of people pulled over for traffic stops have no warrants. The first time I was pulled over was for a burnt out brake light. It was so absolutely minor the officer didn't even write out a warning or anything he just told me, gave me his business card and wished me a nice day...but I'm pretty sure he ran my ID when he took it back to his car.

The way I see it: those felons applying for food stamps are using up very limited, very precious funding. That means they're taking it away from people who do deserve it.

And those felons are also giving ammo to the GOP who wants to cut funding for programs like food stamps by claiming its a waste of money used to prop-up criminals at taxpayer expense.

Let's not give the GOP that kind of ammo and let's help people who really deserve it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #42
70. And their kids are just out of luck
Gotcha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. Well, if the felonious parent is the one with custody...
and s/he goes to jail, who gets the kids?

The other parent, or a close relative. Maybe a foster home. They can probably apply for food stamps/other aid on behalf of the kids.

Is it the fault of the police or the courts or anyone else these people chose to commit a felony?

THEY are the ones who fucked up their kids' lives.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #70
86. What about law-abiding citizens who are turned down for food stamps for lack of funding?
What consideration do THEIR children deserve?

Are we supposed to let criminals run free just because they have kids?

Are we suppose to keep kids in the homes of felons?

Plenty of people in prison went there when they already had children. There are mechanisms in place for dealing with that. Children shouldn't be used as shields to allow people to hide from their responsibilities. If anything I would think children need to be protected from felons.

I see no reason to let criminals take money from more deserving recipients of already scarce funding resources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #86
91. Applause!!!
And I agree...

why the hell are kids being allowed to stay in the home with felons anyway?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #86
95. nobody gets turned down for "lack of funding"
strawman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #95
103. The whole argument about kids is a strawman
Why does the presence of children in the home of a felon shield a felon from their responsibility to account for their actions?

Felons should not be adding to an already burdened system when honest, deserving people--and their children--need help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #103
108. I agree. The argument is about the (lack of) rights of poor people.
it is NOT about felons or children or budgets

it is about whether local law enforcement should be allowed to snoop through food stamp applications. period
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #108
111. If a cop can ask for my ID for a blown brake light and use it to presumably look for warrants
I think he can look for warrants for people asking for public support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #111
114. That is different
He had probable cause in that scenario to pull you over and check you ID. This is different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #114
121. Probable cause for what?
:shrug:

I mean, suppose some guy lost his license for felony DUI. He goes to get his license reinstated only he hasn't served his time yet. Should the DMV just give it to him and not check to see if he has current restrictions/prohibitions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #121
126. Sorry I thought
you were pulled over a blown brake light. I thought that is what you were saying. A blown brake light is probable cause for a traffic stop where they can check your information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #126
130. I once was (I was 17, and scared out of my mind, BTW)
But even still the DMV makes records checks before they issue a license. Perhaps this is a better analogy, sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #114
125. No he didn't.
There is no probable cause in that scenario.

Having a broken taillight is not portable cause that someone is a wanted felon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #125
127. It is probable cause to pull someone over
and check their information. You can't pull over people and check information willy-nilly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #127
134. Not true.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:42 AM by Statistical
It is not probable cause for anything beyond the broken light. However driving is somewhat unique; it isn't a right. When you accept a driver's licenses (as in a licensed activity controlled by the state) you accept certain conditions one of which is you will provide this license at the asking of an officer. There is no probable cause required to ask for a license. Simply your act of agreeing to the conditions of the license and driving is sufficient.

The Police have no probable cause that any additional crimes has been committed or that the person is wanted felon. They have no ability to search your person, or your vehicle without warrant. They have no ability to detain you if the search comes up good due to error or if the system is down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #134
137. I didn't make myself clear
Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #111
153. driving is not a right
and there is very little personal info on or associated with a drivers license anyway

try again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #153
167. Neither is getting food stamps when you're a wanted felon
Heck, even food stamps aren't a right if you make too much money.

If I *wanted* food stamps I wouldn't qualify because I make too much money. If I applied the state would ask for proof of income, employment history, tangible assets etc...something even a cop can't ask for.

So the food stamp people can already be far more invasive than anything this sheriff is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #167
169. some of us feel that having enough to eat IS a right
but go ahead and miss the point

yes the qualifying process is (or at least can be) very invasive, that is another discussion I'd be glad to have some time, but again not the issue other than having all that invasive info available for perusal by local dickheads like Sheriff Joe - and if you think he is unique you are really deluded. He is better connected, but there are a lot of racist, unethical assholes in law enforcement and allowing them to have this kind of info about people they may simply dislike is very dangerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #169
180. Why can't there be racist unethical buttholes at the USDA?
Not long ago here on DU I saw a thread about how people have been berated, belittled and harassed at welfare offices. I myself was shocked by this because I had always assumed abusive personality types gravitated to positions of physical power, i.e. the police and military.

As fate would have it I'm marrying a war vet soon but he is one of the gentlest, supportive and affectionate souls I've ever met and his army buddies are really neat people in their own right. They certainly aren't the scary psychos many have painted in the past. That sort of nonsense just makes me roll my eyes and skip to a new thread.

Conversely I figured if people go into professions intended to help others they would be caring and charitably minded.

But then I read how much abuse so many have endured at the hands of public servants. I was saddened, shocked and angered all at the same time. Why would someone do this? Is the job so stressful they become defensively rude? I'm not prepared to say people seeking assistance are surly bastards provoking this response because THAT would smack of the "welfare queen" imagery and that would be dead wrong.

So I have an alternate theory...maybe people who are petty bullies are an ever constant fact of life and some of them gravitate to any petty fiefdom they may establish for themselves.

If people being mistreated is the issue then I wonder where we can turn to help each other. It'd be nice if there were no petty people and it would be better if they didn't work at the welfare office where honest people should be treated decently but the bullies do. I can't change the bullies.

But I can't abolish welfare just because bullies work there.

If someone tries to be a bully towards you and misuse your info I want to see them thrown out on their ear but I can't find my way to saying criminals should be allowed to run free with public money when better people deserve it more.

I'm sorry but that is how I feel.

In my dream world, and I'm ever more afraid it's just a dream, you and every other family receiving assistance will have fulfilling well-paying jobs and then the only person looking at your bank account is you and you smile when you do. Sadly the world seems unprepared to fulfill such dreams.

I really do wish you all the best though even if I'm a fascist minded unfeeling Reaganite wannabe. :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FirstLight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #108
115. +1000
I'm with you...it's just as bad as these arguments to drug test all welfare recipients...the essence of the safety net is to keep people from resoting to desperate measures because they have no other option. if even 50% of welfare recipients (and yes, most on food stamps need cash aid too) fell off the rolls because of these draconian measures...what do you think they will do to feed their families or themselves? crime would skyrocket.
it's so nice to know that there's so much compassion for those who are on the skids.

felony or no, warrant or no, due process still applies for all americans.
and poverty usually causes a revolving door for problems with the law and lack of employment.
perhpas we should invest in offering more programs for self-help and counseling than using these programs as a dragnet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #115
164. "poverty usually causes a revolving door for problems with the law and lack of employment"
WAY too nuanced for law and order types - they will NEVER grasp the complexities of that point! You really have to just make it about them. Notice how nobody has offered to send their personal info to Sheriff Joe? I keep askin' but nobody is showing me the info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FirstLight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #164
170. here's another one:
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 12:31 PM by FirstLight
You don't usually understand ANY of the emotional, mental, financial and other issues faced by those in chronic poverty unless you have BEEN there.

I grew up almost exactly like Michelle Obama (typical upper middle class 1970s urbanlife)...had a dad that worked 35 years for the phone co, before At&T came and forced early retirement in 1987...he invested in property, saved, and we didn't go 'without' but he certianly wansn't into making it easy for us either.
For reasons I still wonder about, i thumbed my nose at the college life and establishment and chose to live on the other side of the tracks for some time in my early 20's...those choices changed my lifecourse and i have lived in poverty my ENTIRE adult life, and have 3 kids alone to show for it and a spotty employment record and no real degree...
and that's a GOOD version of the story for many, i have no arrests or record in that respect, thank god. But over many years of sitting in that county office or job search class, i have met plenty of men & women who never had the benefit of my upbringing and they are perpetuating poor choices because of a plethora of reasons and huge lack of belief that they can even try to do better...

Unless you know what it is like to have ONLY the food on your shelf and have to feed your kids with pasta, mustard & tuna, until you have to sell your belongings just to survive the next week, and the next week you have nothing to sell and are still struggling, until you have walked that walk...do be so quick to give away MY rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #170
177. there are SOME well-off people who can understand
(thinking people like the Kennedys) but they are exceptional for sure.
It is dismaying to see so many people who seem (claim?) to be regular Democrats not even pretend to have any compassion or understanding.

I should be used to it, I see it even worse with the immigration threads but it still disheartens me to see the amount of simplistic black and white thinking and the callous disregard for other human beings. (nevermind having compassion for OMG felons! - they must all be father-rapers or worse!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #177
178. Your post reminded me of something
Yes. On Colbert Report awhile back Rosalynn Carter was promoting a book of hers. There was one line she said that I'll never forget. Paraphrasing. The prisons are the largest mental health facility in the country. She is so right. I gotta look up the book she was selling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FirstLight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #177
182. and my exhusband is a felon...
but I have compassion for the general people with issues, i'm still working on compassion for his sorry ass...so i'm human too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #182
185. well
not ALL felons - or ex-husbands - or humans, for that matter - deserve compassion ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #95
157. this starves families .
strawman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #157
165. huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #70
135. In a two parent fanily the other parent would still receive
food stamps. If the family has a single parent, the children may be better off with child protective service.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #70
156. where does it say
anyone lost benefits because daddy went to jail?
no where in this article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #18
43. Where does it say that any of these people were convicted?
They're wanted on felony warrants. That does not mean that they've all had due process and been convicted. Maybe someone should read the bill of rights again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. Felon warrant means they were given due process but chose to illegally avoid the courts.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 09:41 AM by Statistical
A criminal can't claim he was denied due process when arrested due to a felony warrant that was issued as a result of his failure to exercise his due process rights.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. But a warrant means they should be arrested
I also presume it means they have a duty to surrender themselves for due process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #46
76. I know what a warrant means.
My response was directed at the other poster's erroneous information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #76
143. It wasn't erroneous.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:53 AM by Statistical
A warrant can't be issued without due process. Period.

Either the Police have sufficient evidence to arrest the person = due process satisfied

OR

The person was released on bail pending trial and decided to become a fugitive rather than EXERCISE THEIR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS in a court of law. A person failing to exercise their rights can't then claim they weren't given the rights.

In both instances a person was accorded due process. If a warranted is issued WITHOUT due process that is the problem not someone using govt data to locate criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #18
54. so entire families take the hit for one person?
Unbelievable that posters on this site are willing to overlook fascism so easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #54
59. I don't know...did the article say
that the entire family is denied food stamp benefits even if the felon is caught using the application for them?

I don't think anyone is advocating for entire families to starve if the need for food stamps is really there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #59
62. what is this - kindergarden? Do you HONESTLY think a parent
who has an outstanding warrant on themselves or a partner is going to apply for food stamps when they know the police are targeting the rolls? Families in crisis having a target placed on them because they sought FOOD?

Wow -- this is the same sort of *deer in the headlights* conversation I'd expect from my neighbors in my red state. You have NO problem with police encroaching on the social safety net that keeps people from starving? Really?

:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #62
65. bingFUCKINGgo
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 10:18 AM by Kali
just one more point of intimidation and harassment for the poor to deal with
I suspect there is a bit of racism behind this as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #62
71. Amen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #62
89. Some will and some won't
The ones who do apply, hey...they get caught. If their family really qualifies for food stamps, I seriously can't imagine them being denied just because the mom or dad has a felony warrant.


The ones who don't apply...if their kids go hungry, whose fault is it, ultimately?

Did someone force those people to commit a felony in the first place?


If they really care that much about their kids, they'll find someone to care for their kids...even if it's the state, and do what's right, which is to turn themselves over for due process of the law. Pay whatever penalty has to be paid...see about getting some kind of help for whatever problem "made" them commit a felony. Do something...anything...to help themselves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #62
113. Apparently some do
If the searches weren't leading to arrests then the cops would get bored and quit looking.

There are stupid crook stories all the time. Why does this seem so extraordinary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #62
139. Crooks aren't the smartest people.
Criminals have been caught by going to the Police to report being robbed of stolen goods (or drugs) by a third party.

Criminals have been caught speeding (for no reason) despite knowing that in any traffic stop their license will be run.

Criminal have been caught trying to buy a gun from a gunshop knowing their application will be matched against NICS.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #139
150. One of my guilty pleasures...
is watching "World's Dumbest Criminals" shows on TruTV

People just would NOT believe how stupid criminals are.

OK...some of what I've seen...

A guy who tried to rob a store but was told the safe was on a time lock for 3 PM and the clerk suggested he leave his name and phone number and call back later. Which was exactly what the fool did. The manager told him he could now come back to rob the store...unfortunately for the crook, the police were there to meet him.


A guy who wore a CLEAR plastic bag over his head to rob a convenience store.


Another who went in, cased the joint, then came back later to rob it dressed in the same shirt and pants, but wearing a bag on his head.


A guy who tried to rob a bank while holding a fake plant in front of his face.


That's just the tip of the iceberg.


Most common criminals are just way too stupid.


:+













Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #150
171. because infotainment teevee is such a great place to form judgments
about a class of people

wow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #171
186. +100. & that's why they put that crap out, to encourage those kinds of judgements.
we should all understand, the lower classes are a cesspool of thieving violent morons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #186
189. Partially why I won't watch "Cops"
I do not take enjoyment watching people in one of their lowest moments in their life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #189
202. same here. i also don't enjoy racist, classist propaganda purveyed by a surveillance state
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 01:58 PM by Hannah Bell
whose crimes are magnitudes greater than any number penny-ante drug addicts'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #186
208. It's magic...truly it is....
take any situation in the world and there are always people around to make it all about some war on the lower classes, even if nothing of the kind was even mentioned, or implied.

As I said, common criminals are stupid, most of them.

Make of that what you will.

Oh, and "common", in my usage of the word, doesn't mean "lower class".





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #208
291. the middle classes are stupid, most of them, as well.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 10:06 PM by Hannah Bell
the clearance rates for bank robberies is among the *highest* for any type of crime.

only 58% of bank robberies are cleared, & only 20% of money stolen in bank robberies is ever recovered.

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/robbery_banks/2 .

because criminals are sooooooo stupid, unlike the brilliant middle classes, who believe tv = reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #171
206. A "class of people"?
Oh, you mean the poor downtrodden robbers, rapists, drug dealers and other people who commit crimes against Society?

People whose stupidity is right there on tape for all the world to see...

My judgment:

They. Are. Stupid.



I never even mentioned a "class" of people, BTW. you did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #206
209. street crime is a class-based phenomemon.
as is white-collar crime.

you may not "mention" it, but it nevertheless is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #209
228. I don't make a distinction between "classes" of criminals
because I don't tend to focus on what someone's "class" is.

A criminal is a criminal.

Plenty of so-called "white collar" criminals have been caught on tape committing crimes as well, and they are just as stupid as any other "class" of criminals.


I'm not the one who implied that it's only the "lower classes" that get shown on TV committing crimes. For all we know, the guy robbing a bank disguised as a plant could have been an office manager supplementing his income.








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #228
233. we can tell
all criminals and their crimes are the same

got it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #233
299. I think you do not understand what I meant
which was that I don't look at someone and say, "Well, that person must be 'lower class', therefore s/he is more prone to committing a crime than someone who is higher up on the social scale".

No social class is immune from crime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #228
247. you're just so gosh-darn unbiased & neutral & fair & all that good stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #247
300. Not exactly, dear...
Most of the time I'm too worried about what others think of me to focus on what I think of others.


It's part of having a Social Phobia, you know.



thanks for bothering to find this out before judging me, though.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #206
213. I actually
don't have a problem with honest drug dealers. The kind that won't rip you off, cut your drug to the point where it isn't effective, sell to you when your life is in the gutter. They stand out because there are so many dealers that are scum. The former are people that do it just to survive, get the bills paid, food on table, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #206
215. I mean the whole group of people you lump into the category
of "stupid criminals" because you saw some extreme examples chosen, edited, (and likely bought off) just for you to watch for ENTERTAINMENT, precisely so you would make the judgments you have.

In the old days they had public executions. Now we have "America's Lamest Criminals". Same phenomenon - all about making the "good" people feel superior and keeping thought to a minimum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #215
260. Just wondering how
my watching a show and allegedly making judgments about the people featured in it is any worse than your making judgments about a show you have never even seen, and, by association, judging me and my thoughts and motives.


Oh, and we all need someone to feel superior to, don't we.

"Liberal" Democrats feel superior to "Moderate" Democrats. Most Democrats feel superior to Republicans and "teabaggers". People who don't agree with using whatever legal means necessary to catch felons feel superior to those who think it's a good idea.

Etc. etc.

Now we've got people equating watching a TV show with the hoi polloi watching public executions for entertainment. And it's pointed out with a tone that sounds suspiciously smug and self-superior.

It's so ironic it's almost hysterical.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #54
147. How do the families take a hit?
They needed food stamps, they got food stamps. The parent (presumably) with the felony warrant had that warrant executed. Doesn't affect the family's food stamp eligibility (for that matter it might increase it).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Missy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #54
159. False premise - families would not be disqualified for food stamps if one member is arrested.
Fascism? That's nonsense. Unbelievable you are so bent on protecting criminals instead of members of society they victimize.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #18
68. Exactly what I was thinking. You want public services? Be prepared to be held accountable
for breaking the fucking law.

I hate these types of OPs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #68
87. or you need help?
expect to have your private information scrutinized by law enforcement for no other reason than they are looking for random felons THAT PROBABLY AREN'T USING SERVICES THAT REQUIRE PROVIDING SO MUCH PERSONAL INFORMATION.

I hate the type of thinking that gives away my rights for illusions of law and order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #87
141. They should still be able to get services, but I don't think they should expect to be able to hide
from law enforcement when asking for government assistance.

Why would anyone care who has nothing to hide?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #141
175. "Why would anyone care who has nothing to hide?"
read a history book

you going to feel that way when something you do (or ARE) is made illegal?
I care because there are SUPPOSED to be basic protections for EVERYBODY. This isn't about the people who "have something to hide" it is about ALL OF US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. Ugh. This is disgusting. Makes my head hurt. So now,
poverty = criminal? Got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. That's not the point...
Poverty does not equal criminal.

Did the article say they're going after everybody who applies for food stamps?

No. Just the people with felony warrants who actually belong in jail...number one for the crime, and number two...for the outstanding warrant.


Imagine being the mom of a kid who gets raped or assaulted by someone wandering around the streets on a felony warrant who could have been put behind bars before the rape even happened. If all it took was checking an application to find that person, then I would imagine the kid's parent would be outraged that something wasn't done to put the criminal behind bars when they had the chance.

Don't innocent people have the right to feel safe and be protected, no matter how the police catch felons?






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Food stamp applications used to find criminals.
Sorry, I think they're abusing the system.

There are all kinds of scenarios anyone could imagine, but there's got to be a better way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. The only ones "abusing the system"
are the felons themselves.


And in applying for food stamps...with their real names and other information, they're either extremely stupid or outrageously arrogant.

Either way, I still ask people to imagine themselves being the victim of a felon who might not have committed the crime upon them if he had been put behind bars any legal way the police could find to do so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. I don't exactly have a problem with this
but that is a very unlikely scenario used to justify this. Possession other than cannabis is a felony and I imagine the majority of these warrants are of non-violent drug users who need treatment. Prison would be counter-productive.
"no matter how the police catch felons?" Well it does matter which is to follow the constitution. However I don't see infrigement on 5th amendment rights in this case. I know police look at a lot more than food stamps to try to catch a suspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. Actually, yes, I should have clarified...
any LEGAL way to find felons.

As far as knowing exactly what these felons have warrants for, that's something we don't know.

And honestly, who cares? If it's a felony, it's a felony. I'm not talking about some guy defaulting on child support payments, or the crime of prostitution or jay-walking or someone stealing a bicycle.


Police do indeed look at more than food stamp applications to catch crooks...I fully support any method that's legal under the Constitution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Ok
My point was felon is being thrown around like a scary word.

Ok I read your post and took it personally. The reason why is, I commit felonies every month and I have for years.

ANY amount of cannabis in Arizona is class 6 felony. So that would make me a felon except for the fact I don't have a felony conviction. Also this is more of politicians fault but I think this entire war on drugs is not very productive. Almost all states have felony statues for drugs harder than cannabis. I'm lucky enough to live in a state where cannabis is a felony!

Anyways have a nice day! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Missy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
24. no, that's not what it means. It does mean felony warrant = arrest. warrants are issued for crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
84. That's not how I see it
Food stamp application = physical address. If a person is on the lam, that's very useful information for law enforcement.

I'd have no problem with police doing the same thing with driver's license applications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
88. That's not what it says
Or even implies. What I do think it says is that people poor enough (meaning desperate) to fill out a food stamp application will do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. unbelievable -- so now we're going to let people starve because of warrants?
I guess it's easier to sit in an office perusing lists than going out and actually searching for people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Much better to pay others money for not finding people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. With police departments being cut to the quick, what would you do?
What rules do you think the police should follow? Is there a rule book on how to catch felons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piratefish08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. Rule Book for Catching Felons - Rule 1 - Go to Wall St and Congress.
There's thousands of motherfucking REAL criminals evading justice and you don't need a food stamp list to find them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. Those guys at Wall St
freakin' robbed this country of a $127 billion dollar surplus. Of course they had some help by de-regulators but they got some thieves over there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #20
41. How many of those people are actual felons?
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 09:29 AM by lunatica
Yeah, I know. They should be, but most of them aren't. What police department is going to go to Wall Street and arrest people just because they legally rob the country blind? So where is the rule book?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #41
187. how many food stamp recipients are wanted felons?
exactly. the rule book is called the Bill of Rights - it gives EXCELLENT guidance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Missy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
26. where did it say that? Oh, it didn't say that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #26
52. sorry you can't make the connection
Jeez -- do you *think* people would be stupid enough to apply for food stamps if they knew the police were using the rolls to find outstanding warrants?

DUH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #52
61. It's not hard to tell
the people who don't have a clue about the criminal mind. Which isn't a slam against them or anything, just to make that clear...


It's just that...

YES!!!

people will indeed be stupid enough to do just about anything even if they know they could get caught.

Do people rob banks and convenience/department stores in broad daylight without wearing disguises even though they know there are surveillance cameras about? They certainly do.

Are there even some police officers who beat a suspect even though they KNOW there's a camera in the cruiser catching every second of it? Yes.

You really do not understand how incredibly stupid/arrogant some criminals can be.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Missy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #52
154. I'm glad I don't think like you. If there is a warrant for your arrest, you get fed in jail.
Since when are criminals with outstanding federal warrants, who do not turn themselves in, entitled to a free pass?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #154
210. Easy there
Nowhere in the article says that these are outstanding warrants, let alone federal ones. An outstanding one is someone who is avoiding law enforcement or just simply forgot or didn't about a court date. The article says it was a felony arrest warrant. Those are given out when a law enforcement signs a sworn affidavit showing probable cause a crime has been committed. After that they go after the person. So they probably don't know that they are in trouble yet so I wouldn't make up things like did not turn themselves in or "outstanding" and "federal" words that don't appear in the article. Outstanding warrant is different than a simple arrest warrant that a suspect doesn't find out about until the cops show up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #210
217. is that right?
oh man, that makes this even worse
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
44. Prisons serve food.
Put the felons in prison where they belong and they will be fed and then the people who really deserve food stamps won't have to compete with felons for limited funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #44
93. this isn't about saving money
that is a bullshit argument
first of all I doubt many wanted criminals are applying for food stamps in the first place, but even if some are the numbers are going to be insignificant

this "reasoning" is reminiscent of ray-guns welfare queen propaganda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #93
109. Well thank goodness the public support system has reached a point of perfection
I guess our work there is done. America is finally a land of social justice for the poor and disadvantaged with no fraud, waste or abuse to burden its well-funded and smoothly-operating mechanisms.

Thank goodness, I was worried there for a minute.

Better still I learn the number of criminals using the public support system are so few in number the real news is that this is news at all. I suppose the searches will yield such a paucity of actionable information that the cops will probably get bored and move on to some other scheme.

So much good news. I hardly know how to contend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
6. Well, if Mom & Dad are in jail,
then the food stamps will go further for the kids. Can't you see how this all works out? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #6
144. If Mom and Dad are felons, should they be raising kids?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. Why in the world would be want to arrest people who have felony warrants
its not like we should have laws or anything
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. It's an outrage, I tell ya!!!!!
:mad:


seriously, though...I particularly enjoy seeing the "stings" on TV where the cops send out fake "You have won a trip to the Bahamas" notice to felons whose addresses they do know, but they can never seem to find these people.

They go to a nice hotel or conference center, sit around in a room having drinks and cheese platters, then one by one are taken to a back room where they're arrested.

Some of the people caught this way are actually amused at the ingenuity of the whole thing.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
11. Any info from restaurants or stores to capture escaped convicts should be inadmissable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brickbat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
12. I don't see a problem with this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
13. These felons can eat in jail..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
15. What is the problem?
I see it no different than comparing felon list against DMV, purged voter registration rolls, unemployment rolls, etc.

I mean they are felons wanted for crimes. It is the job of the Police to find them. Data analysis that results in valid up to date demographic data (address, phone, alias, etc) if very useful in actually finding wanted people.

I mean why should this data (or DMV data, or any other data be off limits)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
56. I guess it's only "fair"
when the police are using crystal balls and clairvoyants....


:+

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
90. The potential problem is the information sharing.
There are privacy issues and the worries about "big brother." I think there are legitimate civil rights concerns, but this seems OK as written.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #90
117. What information could possibly be shared?
Asking for food stamps is not a crime so it's not like the police can arrest innocent people just for receiving public support.

It won't hurt chances for employment because employers get tax credits for hiring people on public support (ironically, including criminals that have served their time).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #117
120. The fact that the information is shared in the first place is the issue.
Can and should government agencies be able to share personal information with each other? What about with agencies from a different form of government like federal to state, or state to county?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #120
128. Should the DMV look for driving prohibitions before issuing a license?
They check not only for things like outstanding DUI convictions but unpaid taxes and child support.

I wholly support the idea of food stamps, welfare, job training etc but the idea that criminals should be allowed to abuse the system while other more deserving people have to endure that system seems beyond defense to me. Sorry, but I want help going to those who need and deserve it the most, not people who victimize others and society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #120
132. Of course they can and routinely do.
You have no expectation of privacy from the government when you willingly give information to the government.

Period.

I am no felon but when I purchase a gun not only does the federal government match my information against database of felons but it also shares that information w/ state agencies to match for possible outstanding warrants that are not in the NICS system. The State Police are notified is the system gets a hit. A person with outstanding warrant attempting to purchase firearm. The system isn't used ONLY to prevent felons from getting firearms but also used to arrest those persons without outstanding warrants.

Another example is states routinely share warrant information. Thus if I have a warrant in TX but get pulled over in vA for expired tags I have no expecation that my VA information (license #, address, name, etc) won't be matched against TX list of wanted felons.

Please cite a single case anywhere in history of United States where it was found that a person has an expectation of privacy when willingly giving information to the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #120
239. That's an excellent question....can government agencies share info?
Generally, absent personal medical info, yes.

For example, since I have a professional licensure, should the government be able to access information about me? Like if I speed, do drugs, cheat on my taxes, should it affect my license? Should the government be able to access that info?

Well, if I want a license, yes. A licence is a privilege. Food stamps are a government program, not a right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #117
179. "employers get tax credits for hiring people on public support"
say what!? please show me some evidence of this

sure walmart PROFITS from making people go on welfare (by not paying a living wage or providing health insurance), but they don't get tax credits
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #179
197. My brother is a restaurant manager and he has to fill out form for all new hires
to determine if they qualify.

Work Opportunity Tax Credit
The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) is a Federal tax credit incentive that the Congress provides to private-sector businesses for hiring individuals from twelve target groups who have consistently faced significant barriers to employment. The main objective of this program is to enable the targeted employees to gradually move from economic dependency into self-sufficiency as they earn a steady income and become contributing taxpayers, while the participating employers are compensated by being able to reduce their federal income tax liability. WOTC joins other workforce programs that help incentivize workplace diversity and facilitate access to good jobs for American workers.


http://www.doleta.gov/business/incentives/opptax /

From the brochure on new hires that qualify:

1. Long-term TANF recipient∗ -- member of a family that received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) for at least 18 consecutive months ending on the hiring date; or receives TANF payments for any 18 months (whether or not consecutive) beginning after August 5, 1997, and the earliest 18-month period beginning after August 5, 1997, ended during the past 2 years prior to the hiring date; or whose family stopped being eligible for TANF payments because Federal or state law limited the maximum time those payments could be made, and the individual is hired not more than 2 years after such eligibility ended.

2. Other TANF recipient∗ -- member of a family that received TANF payments for any 9 months during the 18-month period ending on the hiring date.

3. Veteran∗ member of a family that received assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (food stamps) for at least a 3-month period during the 15-month period ending on the hiring date; or a disabled veteran entitled to compensation for a service-connected disability and is hired not more than one year after being discharged or released from active duty; or a disabled veteran entitled to compensation for a service-connected disability and was unemployed for a period or periods totaling at least 6 months (whether or not consecutive) in the one-year period ending on the hiring date.

4. 18-39 year-old SNAP (food stamps) benefits recipient ∗ -- member of a family who is at least age 18 but not yet 40 on the hiring date, and who received SNAP (food stamps) benefits for either the 6-month period ending on the hiring date, or he/she is no longer eligible for such assistance under Section 6(o) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, but the family received SNAP benefits for at least 3 of the 5-month period ending on the hiring date.

5. 18-39 year-old designated community resident ∗-- and individual who is at least age 18 but not yet 40 on the hiring date and lives within an Empowerment Zone (EZ), Renewal Community (RC), or Rural Renewal County (RRC). ∗∗

6. 16-17 year-old summer youth -- individual who works for the employer between May 1 and September 15, is at least age 16 but not yet 18 on the hiring date (or if later, on May 1), has never worked for the employer before, and lives in an Empowerment Zone or Renewal Community. ∗∗

7. Vocational rehabilitation referral -- disabled person referred to the employer upon completion of (or while receiving) rehabilitation services approved by the State, an Employment Network under the Ticket-to-Work Program, or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

8. Ex-felon -- individual who was convicted of a felony and who is hired not more than one year after the conviction or release from prison.

9. SSI recipient individual who is receiving Supplemental Security Income benefits for any month ending during the past 60-day period ending on the hiring date.

10. Hurricane Katrina employee an individual who, on August 28, 2005, had a primary residence in the Gulf Opportunity (GO) Zone (core disaster zone) and, during a 4-year period beginning on this date, is hired to perform services, principally, in the GO Zone. State certification does not apply to this group.

11. Unemployed veteran a veteran hired after 2008 and before 2011, who is certified as: 1) having been discharged or released from active duty at any time during the 5-year period ending on the hiring date, and 2) having received unemployment compensation under State or Federal law for not less than four weeks during the one-year period ending on the hiring date.

12. Disconnected youth -- individual who is certified as: 1) having attained age 16 but not age 25 on the hiring date, 2) not regularly attending any secondary, technical, or post-secondary school during the 6-month period preceding the hiring date, 3) not regularly employed during such 6-month period, and
4) not readily employable by reason of lacking a sufficient number of basic skills.


http://www.doleta.gov/business/incentives/opptax/PDF/WO...

See, I'm not so totally crazy after all. Maybe a little crazy but not totally crazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #197
207. mea culpa
I knew about ex-felon credits, as back in the day when things were good we had a guy on payroll who was a new release,(not why we hired but did take the credit)

so I apologize for my error on credit for the other, haven't been in the position to hire employees since early 90's.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #207
211. No need for a mea culpa. We aren't arguing just sharing info
Maybe we don't see eye to eye on every point but that doesn't mean you're my enemy/opponent or anything silly like that.

Perhaps?

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #211
219. I can admit when I am wwwrrrr...wwwrrrr rrrooo
when I am uh :think: um not correct....

it just doesn't happen very often and I'm not used to it :hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #219
224. Except you weren't wrong
You were simply unaware.

It would be unreasonable for anyone to assume you know all aspects of public assistance programs. I didn't know it existed until my brother told me about it.

Like I said, we're just sharing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
19. What is this world coming to when a felon can't even apply for government benefits
without being hounded by "big brother". Why is the government going to such extremes simply to punish those who have chosen not to participate in the judicial system? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. Beats me...I heard recently that
some people in prison were actually trying to fraudulently cash in on that $8000 first time homebuyer credit thing.

From prison.

http://blog.hsh.com/index.php/2010/06/prisoners-cash-in... /


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dembotoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
32. Really rather clever--although it bothers me
There is stigma to needing aid--this will not help.

But the idea of using lists and a computer to match up names is nothing new.

Would imagine other lists sorts would also produce results.

I might suggest tax audits and tavern associations--lots of under the table payments....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
33. The primary issue is that info. used for food stamps is being given to law enforcement.
There is no longer a right to confidentiality when one applies for social services.
there used to be, but no more. Data mining is massive now.
Plus, we do not know if this data is being used only for felonies.
What about parking tickets and other misdemeanors?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
36. It's a public record
Just like driver's licenses, etc. Police commonly use public records to trace people with outstanding warrants.

I don't see the problem, and some of these people are really bad actors who will commit further crimes if not incarcerated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
38. Would people be as upset if they were using tax returns to find white collar criminals? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #38
75. there is a hell of a lot less info on a tax return than a food stamp app
in fact ours go to a POBox so good luck "finding" somebody that way
they are used as EVIDENCE in the cases of tax fraud against white collar criminals and I am pretty sure they are obtained with court ordered warrants.

food stamp apps are VERY intrusive and detailed about all kinds of personal information, including letters/interviews with employers/neighbors/landlords, people in the home, medical info etc etc

I'm sure it may make some police work easier, but I'm also sure that isn't really a burden that needs to be added to people already at a disadvantage in our society. Discouraging people from seeking help when they need it because of fear comes across as...well...republican, ya know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #75
78. I've filled out a food stamp application - there were no interviews, letters, medical information or
any of what you claim.

It asked for very basic information. Name, address, dependents, ssn, and income information.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #78
97. so have I, and that information WAS requested
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:03 AM by Kali
we are also required to be fingerprinted and photo'd here in AZ
one of only two states currently getting away with that (the fingerprinting, don't know about the interviews/photos for other states)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #75
80. So...no? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #80
100. none of the local sheriff's biz, ya know?
WTF is the problem with understanding basic rights to privacy?

why don't you publish all that info in your next post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #100
107. Not sure why you're getting angry, Kali...it was just a question.
It seems to me that if privacy was the main concern, people would be just as upset for one as for the other.

That doesn't seem to be the case with you, which seems odd to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #107
112. I do not understand your statement.
and perhaps I didn't understand what you meant by "So...no?"


I am angry because people are selfish and unthinking about others. Law and order liberals. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #112
119. I originally asked if people would be as upset if tax returns were used to
find white collar criminals. From your reply I gathered that in your opinion that is not as bad as culling food stamp applications to find the location of people with felony warrants.

Please correct me if that is not the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #119
183. and I said they were not even in the realm of the same thing
however, I do think looking though tax returns in the hopes of finding crooks is wrong (and likely ineffective).

I don't want the local sheriff looking at my tax returns or my food stamp application (which ironically HAS included a copy of my tax returns) do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #183
293. "I do think looking though tax returns in the hopes of finding crooks is wrong"
Whew! An actual answer, after all that!

As far as whether I agree with you, it depends: I wish I knew the exact format that the cops are getting this info...IOW, if the non-relevant info has been redacted and it is only the person's name and address, then I think it's fine.

If it includes all of the personal information, it seems like a situation ripe for abuse/misuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #112
122. What is wrong with law & order?
Felons should be doing time not collecting benefits.

This system places no additional burden on those collecting benefits.
It uses data the govt collects (to verify legitimacy of request) anyways.

If that data results in capture of wanted felons I see no problem with it.

I guess that believing wanted felons should be captured and not collecting benefits makes me a "law & order liberal".

Since when did "liberals" become anti law & order?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #122
152. My issues with this
(I'm not getting on the Sheriffs or Cops--It's the politicians fault)

That this drug war is a sham and I bet a good number of these people are non-violent drug offenders that need rehabilitation. I looked up the laws any substance and cannabis over 28 grams is a felony in the state. Now you can go on about shouldn't be doing it anyway but genetics and environmental factors play a huge role in someone becoming addicted. Those genes and enivornmental triggers affect addicts unlike people who aren't. The type that can have 1 or 2 drinks after work to relax and that's it.

I really think we need to reform the ways we do drug policy.

The other felons, thieves, violent, etc. should be locked up as well as rehabilitated especially if he/she has projected release date way before old age so they could re-enter into society and hopefully someone will hire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #122
192. nothing wrong with law and order
when it is applied fairly to all

the term law and order is in reference to the type of black and white thinking that is often associated with conservatives and others who have no ability to see the grey areas. Things are either right or wrong, never any extenuating circumstances (except in their cases when they get caught - see rush limbaugh and drug laws for example) and all people suspected of "breaking the LAW" deserve swift and hopefully severe punishment. especially if they are poor, brown, black or horror! not even citizens of amurika!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #112
129. You know who's selfish and unthinking about others?
People who commit crimes, get charged with a felony, then try to abuse the system by:

1. Not showing up for due process.

2. Putting any children they MAY have at risk, both from their criminal acts themselves, and the consequences of what law enforcement officials can/might/will do to apprehend them.


Someone...anyone...please tell me how this is NOT unselfish and uncaring.


Oh, and I happen to agree with the person above who realized that "poor starving kids" are being used in this discussion to make some of us look like cold, unfeeling, hardhearted bastards.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #129
195. I agree that some criminals are selfish and unthinking
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 01:41 PM by Kali
but not all, and the fact that many here can't even see THAT, much less that people in poverty are already subjected to enough degradation and humiliation and don't need overbearing law enforcement snooping in their personal information does indeed make them (YOU?) seem like cold, unfeeling, hardhearted bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #195
216. Again, I'm not talking about a guy
who steals a box of cereal to feed his kids, or a gallon of milk, or a waiter's tip from an empty table because his kid needs lunch money.

Not even talking about people who steal shit from stores during disasters like hurricanes or whatever, as long as the things they steal are meant for their own, or their families' survival.


I'm talking about felons.

They are selfish and unthinking and uncaring. They don't seem to care about themselves, their families, their victims, or Society as a whole.

They deserve to be hunted down and prosecuted any legal way there is.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #216
220. There you go with that scary felon word
Like I said upthread I commit a felony at least once a month (Remember 1 cannabis seed is a class 6 felony in Arizona) and for years. So therefore I'm a "felon" even though I haven't been caught.

I'm FAR from selfish. I care and think about my immediate family and I don't have any victims. I think I care about society, I'm here on a political board and I vote every election.

I will also point out many "felons" are non-violent drug users or committed some crime that was almost a misdemeanor but not too serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #220
225. Let me just clarify for you
smoking pot, or having seeds on one's person shouldn't even be a misdemeanor, let alone a felony.

I'm sorry the law says you're a felon. That's not right.


Aside from that, and let's use a bit of common sense here...

someone who commits armed robbery, sells hard drugs, injures with intent to kill, commits assault/battery on another person...those types of crimes.

Yes. Those people are scary.


Maybe someday someone with an ounce of sense will remove the "felon" distinction from whatever it is that you do with pot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #225
234. except just a few post upthread
you lumped all criminals together
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #234
298. OMG...off with my head!!!
chop!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #75
99. the information asked for on an application...
I'm sure isn't required for purposes of police investigation.

I just looked at an application for food stamps in Mass, and yes, there are all sorts of questions to answer.

But it's to determine eligibility. Just wondering if people here are comfortable with the idea of giving food stamps to anyone who merely asks for them without providing proof of need.

Also, and I'm sure I'm going to take a few hits for this, but whatever...

how many people here are really so naive as to think that someone who may have a drug felony... or two or three...gives a rat's ass about feeding his or her kids? You don't think these people are going to sell the food stamps for drugs or something?

Oh yeah...we're not supposed to tell people how to use what we give them.

meanwhile, as someone else pointed out...people who WOULD use food stamps in the proper manner won't be able to get them because someone who's abusing the system is being a drag on it...

And really...people wonder why Republicans get so worked up about "waste".






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #99
101. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #101
106. Have no idea what you mean...
if you have a problem with anything I said, then please be so good as to explain what it is...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #106
124. lots of problems with what you wrote
but sticking with the main subject, can one of you people advocating anything for catching criminals, please tell me if you would want the local sheriff reading that info about you?

would you be willing to fill out that form (and possibly provide the kind of info asked in secondary interviews with DES) and send it to somebody like Joe Arpaio?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #124
133. Not if I had outstanding felony warrants. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #124
136. Well, seeing as
how I haven't committed any crimes lately, I would have no problem at all with someone reading that information.


Judging from the application I looked at, it's nothing that couldn't be found by looking at maybe five or six other places anyway. Except on the food stamp application it's all there in one place.

It's out there anyway. If you have a work history, a driver's license, a home, a job, a social security number, a credit card or bank account...it's all out there.



Second question...the only way I'd be worried about that information going to someone like Joe Arpaio would be if I had committed some crime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #136
158. Well Arpaio isn't only interested in crimes
But you may not be high enough of a political opponent to go after. He usually goes after New Times journalists, the Phoenix mayor, the Attorney General, and pretty much anyone who disagrees with him. His partner in crime Andrew Thomas filed indictments against County Supervisors which were dismissed. Then he filed a racketeering lawsuits against the Supervisors and the Judges that dismissed his cases which he claimed where biased. You know what his evidence was? Cases that were dismissed. Now he is being investigated by the FBI (Where Arpaio is running ads defending Thomas and attacking Obama's justice department) and could lose his bar. Interesting though considering he is going the GOP nominee for Attorney General. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #158
173. I almost forgot
He tried to subpoena IP addresses of New Times website visitors because they had a story which featured a home in crooked real estate dealings. The judge ruled the subpoena was not issued validly.

So if you are in his area. Be careful what you do especially if you're on the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #136
201. I know this will be hard but there are principles involved that have nothing to do with
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 01:56 PM by Kali
you now at this point in time. Someday something you do or some actual aspect about you as a person might become illegal. Or who knows maybe you make a political enemy of some asshole like Arpaio (you know he has already done this kind of thing to people who have "crossed" him, right?) You need to think about whether allowing law enforcement easy access to your personal information is really a good idea or not.

I don't know how to make it any simpler. The first individuals to lose those sorts of rights are the poor, and minorities. But just because some possible felon on food stamps doesn't matter to you doesn't mean the same kind of thing can;t ever happen to you. The presumption of a right to privacy and of innocence is so basic that when you have a viewpoint exemplified by "if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" I just am not articulate enough to explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #201
214. How does a felon being tracked down by food stamp application
get transformed into a political vendetta?


Let's just stop that foolishness, shall we? This has nothing to do with political revenge. It's law enforcement officers attempting to do their jobs...taking felons off the streets. Make them take responsibility in a court of law, either be found guilty or not guilty by a judge or jury. That's it.


I mentioned it somewhere up above, and I'll say it again.

Most of the information on those applications can be found in any number of other places anyway. Using the applications makes it a little easier for law enforcement to DO THEIR JOBS and get these felons off the streets instead of having to check five or six other places.

The "poor starving children" of these felons argument doesn't work.

Neither does the "Political vendetta" thing.


You know, it's not like I can't understand the point of people who would not want their personal information shared by law enforcement. I get it. Really, I do.

But it's not illegal, and people who hate it so much maybe should do whatever they need to do in order to MAKE it illegal or unconstitutional.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #101
110. "are you sure you are on the right site?" What are you implying, Kali?
Accusing someone of "that" is against the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #110
116. so is that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #116
123. No idea what rule you think I'm breaking, but use the "Alert" function and let the Mods decide. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
58. That guy's a fuckin' peach, ain't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
69. Don't want to be caught, don't break the damn law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slampoet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #69
131. Like sodomy laws?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #131
145. In what state is sodomy (between consenting adults) a felony?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #131
149. Even before Lawrence v. Texas, sodomy was not a felony anywhere AFAIK
Are you aware of a state where it was?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #149
166. It was a felony
in Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
81. Why not? The Bush administration used No Child Left Behind to identify potential cannon fodder.
Actually, I believe it was created for just that purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
85. Is that type of information sharing legal?
As long as it is, then I don't have a problem with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommy_Carcetti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
98. Looks like Joe Arapio has competition. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #98
104. ...
:yourock:


right to the fucking point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
105. It's implying that people on food stamps are a good place to look
for people with warrants. I bet they have no statistics for that, but it seems like "common sense" to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #105
118. Apparently that implication is correct. It's one of many potential places to look for fugitives.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:27 AM by slackmaster
You can't argue with 300 warrants being served, that otherwise probably would not have been.

The effectiveness of the method will probably drop rapidly, now that it's been made public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #118
138. Imagine the implications at the DMV
where they look for DUIs, tax liens and unpaid child support. Everyone trying to drive becomes a suspect!!!

The nerve of the government enforcing the laws we demand they write.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #138
161. No doubt a blanket check of everyone who gets a DL renewal would eventually catch most fugitives
Except for ones who drive without a license, or who don't drive at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #161
168. Yes, but apparently there are plenty of criminals
who do decide to plug themselves into the public system, e.g. the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #161
174. Or live in Arizona
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 12:35 PM by JonLP24
My license doesn't expire until 2051. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #118
245. But it discourages people from applying for food stamps
which you are saying is desirable. I'd rather the kids eat than that there be this extra way to find their felony-accused parents (which nothing stops them from trying to do by other means).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #245
262. oh who cares?
don't you know the poor deserve everything they get? and most of them are criminals anyway so really, the more of the freeloaders who are intimidated the more cash we save so we can spend it spreadin' democracy and the american way or give it to the bankers and other worthy individuals.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #245
295. If you are going to quote or paraprhrase what I wrote, at least have the decency to do it accurately
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 10:36 AM by slackmaster
But it discourages people from applying for food stamps... ...which you are saying is desirable.

I have never said that it's desirable to discourage people from applying for food stamps!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
142. Very good. (nt)
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:45 AM by w4rma
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
146. Absolutely disgusting.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:49 AM by Lucian
And some people here praise this? That's even more disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #146
148. Why? Care to clarify?
What is wrong with govt uses data analysis to catch more wanted persons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #148
184. I shouldn't have to clarify this here on a Democratic board.
If you need clarification, it speaks a lot about your character.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #184
205. that one's pretty familiar
and what it all boils down to is, "It's disgusting because I said so".

Or..."If you don't know, then I'm not going to tell you".


Famous words I always heard from my mom. Although she never called our character into the whole deal.


She just figured she had already won the argument.


:eyes:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #184
221. Wanting felons to stay on the street
says alot about yours
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #221
235. Targeting the poor and assuming they're felons is the wrong way to do it.
Not figuring that out is pretty pitiful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #235
241. No one is "targeting" anyone: they are checking a list of people receiving a public benefit against
a list of those with outstanding felony warrants. And guess what? They're finding real felons with real warrants and taking them off the streets.

It really is that simple, all the faux outrage notwithstanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #235
242. They're not targeting the poor
they're targeting criminals do think it's wrong for the DMV to check for DUI's etc before handing people licenses or is that unfair targeting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #221
237. yes
because being concerned about the civil rights and liberties of poor (and ultimately all) people is EXACTLY the same thing as "wanting felons to stay on the street"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #237
244. What liberties are they losing
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 03:30 PM by SpartanDem
this info often checked against other public info to make sure they're eligible. But the police it is a using is violation of their rights? Why should felons for that matter expect to get PUBLIC benefits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #244
249. privacy
you know, the right to be safe from unreasonable search...and I am not talking about the few alleged felons in the system, I am talking about the rest of the applicants.

Nice sig line, by the way. The irony is interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #249
253. You have no expectation of privacy when providing information to the govt willingly.
Period.

By your logic criminal background check for firearms would be Unconstitutional. The checking of data against felon database would constitute an unreasonable search and thus be Unconstitutional.

Of course it doesn't because computer records matching is not a search.

Given the Police are only acting upon people with outstanding warrants the govt has already used due process to conduct a search on that person once they are matched.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #253
258. sorry
if I am applying for a background check for firearms (not, I would buy privately) I EXPECT a background check.

If I am applying for food stamps I expect them to check my information. I do NOT expect them to hand it over to law enforcement without some real justification.

Do you think your credit card application should be given to law enforcement? What about a job application? Medical records? The well-off and comfortable don't have to worry about these intrusions (although they should!)

If it is just a computer name match then let the social service agency handle it - the cops can give them a list of suspected felons to match applicants against, not the police - why should they have a list of welfare recipients?

Talk about eating the poor and minorities. If you can't understand the justifiable fear of the police these groups have...

when people are afraid to ask for help that might very well prevent them from criminal behavior the whole process is self defeating

on the other hand if you view them all as criminals and undeserving of help at all ... well keep up the harassment and intimidation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #258
266. 'Scuse me, but...
This sentence:

when people are afraid to ask for help that might very well prevent them from criminal behavior the whole process is self defeating


I have a problem with because it doesn't make sense.

These people they're looking for have already committed one or more crimes.

Felonies.


If someone hasn't committed a crime, his name isn't going to show up in the police database, and likely nobody is going to bother with him because there are other fish to fry.

Even people who HAVE committed a minor crime probably won't be bothered with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #266
268. It is clear that you have a problem comprehending the big picture.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 05:39 PM by Kali
Last time for you: the issue isn't about the people they are looking for, it is about the rest of us. You seem unable to understand that when one person's liberties are limited by government it eventually affects all of us. Our laws are supposed to protect the weakest among us, not give even more power to those who already have the most.

I am sorry, but I have said it in as many ways as I can think of. Someone more articulate or with more patience will have to help you. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what many poor people deal with every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #268
270. "Last time for you"
thank god :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #270
274. what, no rude eye rollies for the other person in a two way
drag out? :eyes:

thanks for your contribution :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #274
281. nope, none for them, just for you.
just because i haven't posted, doesn't mean i'm not reading the thread and following along....

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #268
276. You have my sympathies, really
I mean, it must be a trial of mammoth proportions to have to explain such elementary concepts to one so stupid as myself.


Once again...there is NO law against using information that can be gathered in five or six other places to put felons in jail where they belong.

All this does is make the job of the police easier so they can catch more felons and protect innocent people from crime.

My hope is that you never become the victim of a crime committed by a felon who might have been caught before committing that crime on you had the police used whatever legal means at their disposal to catch him (or her).

Just for shits and giggles, though...I'd like to see you walk into a jail/prison and apologize to a poor downtrodden felon (maybe a child rapist or something) because his "rights" were violated when the police caught him using a food stamp application. Then complain to the family of the kid the guy raped.

Let us all know how that worked out.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #249
264. How do you even know
the privacy of the other applicants/recipients is being violated?

For all you know, the police could be handing over a list of suspects whose last known address was in the area and having the names matched without even seeing any other names.

Do you actually think they've got a bunch of people looking through thousands of names, reading all their personal information? Spying on them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #264
273. even one case of spying would be the proof that what I am saying is right
don't need thousands. One asshole cop harrassing one applicant that he had info on, would be it. Are you seriously so naive to think something like that wouldn't be abused?


I don't know who has what lists (and neither do you), but I will point out that quite some time ago I agreed if the list of felons was given to the assistance agencies for checking that would be a little more acceptable than handing personal info to police.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #273
284. You've definitely got the worst of all these various exchanges you've had in this thread.
I've rarely seen so much mental energy & effort expended on such a cause that was so out of proportion to the actual amount of headway made in support of your assertions, and I've been debating on the internets since the days of AOL chat.

Quite entertaining - by all means continue. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #273
296. So one cop/sheriff spying means they're all spying?
I think people are way too convinced of their own importance. :+



the only thing these law enforcement officials want is a physical address of the people they're supposed to arrest for outstanding felony warrants.

Oh, they might even write down whatever phone numbers are available, on the chance they might be able to pull a "sting" to get their suspects.

And about the one "asshole cop harassing one applicant he had info on", yeah, that could happen. Anything could happen. Police could harass people using just about any information on them.

Just wondering if you realize how much information is out there that is either free, or comes at a minimal cost, that police could use to "harass" someone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #184
222. It speaks nothing about the replier's "character": it speaks volumes about your refusal to answer a
simple question put to you regarding an assertion you made, and a seeming penchant for personal attacks in lieu of actual discussion.

Please try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Missy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
162. Good! The criminal gets fed in jail, and more food for the rest of the family!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
181. welcome to the surveillance state. if you apply for any kind of assistance, this can happen.
i first became aware when volunteering at a homeless shelter how non-confidential client information was. police chief on the board of the org, anyone who entered was checked for warrants, & interesting info on clients (not necessarily police-related) passed on.

which is why i won't go to a homeless shelter should i ever become homeless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #181
199. Why would you want potentially dangerous people lving amongst
folks alrady having a difficult time.

Homeless people deserve to be safe from criminals and shelters take responsibility for their safety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #199
204. you don't get it. it's not just about "potentially dangerous people". i have no objection to
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 02:00 PM by Hannah Bell
shelters checking for warrants. i've done that. you just give a name.

but that's not all they do.

effectively, shelter personnel act as spies.

you can assume any "helping professional" may be doing the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #199
212. your use of the word "potentially" is the problem
anybody is "potentially" dangerous. should we snoop through everybody's personal information? or just certain people, like the ones who ask for help for instance? or should was actually wait for evidence?

the word "safety" and the blatant use of fear to justify encroachment of civil liberties is always a red flag for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #212
223. I'm thinking people with outstanding felony warrants
are far more potentially dangerous.

One poster noted background checks when buying guns. Is the fact that "potentially dangerous" can be misused to snoop personal information a reason to NOT run background checks when someone tries to buy a gun?

Using the word "safety" and the blatant use of fear to justify encroachment of civil liberties is always a red flag for me as well.

Of course being safe in a shelter is also a civil liberty because if a felon was let in and he did hurt someone then the victim might well sue and win against the shelter for not taking reasonable precautions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #223
230. trying to get shelter is not the same thing as trying to buy a gun or a license
and niether is applying for food stamps. If the aid agencies run a check that is one thing, entirely different matter allowing law enforcement access to any or all applicant' information or even their names.


a lot of homeless people won't stay in shelters anyway because of the dangers - wanted felons or not, (and how many are ex-felons anyway?) so picking out a few "wanted" people isn't going to make much difference is it? I suspect it is more about the present - no weapons or intoxication that sort of thing rather than extensive background checks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #212
248. They did wait for evidence.
The match is simply looking for people who have an active felony warrant.

Nobody due process is being denied. Applying for services don't cause you to get a warrant.

If someone has a warrant and it is valid then they should be arrested.
If someone has no warrant then the check will come back "clean".
If someone has a warrant but it is a mistake or error not checking now doesn't make that just means it is hanging over them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #248
280. did applying for assistance cause a a look?
that is the point - is applying for assistance giving the police carte blanche to snoop through any applicant's personal information?

Are they allowed to search lists of students at a school? Or do they have to ask for specific individuals?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #280
290. +100. in a shelter the justification for checking for warrants is -- letting potentially dangerous
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 08:22 PM by Hannah Bell
people in can be dangerous to staff & residents.

for food stamps, no such justification. & what you're liable to turn up is traffic violations, unpaid tickets, etc.

it's just carte blanche to snoop on the poor, deny them basic subsistence, & push them further outside the system.

The only justification is that they're using subsidized government services.

So i think we should run warrant checks on everyone who applies for (federally-subsidized, federally-guaranteed) student loans, mortgages, energy credits, government contracts, tax credits, farm subsidies, etc.

There's no more justification for snooping on the poor than any other group who gets subsidies from the government. And there are plenty of groups who get *way* more subsidies than food stamp recipients.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #181
265. I have had to apply a couple times in my life. (medical emergencies)
I was very shocked at the lack of confidentiality, and the outright humiliation one has to go through, even from the employees that are actually nice and sympathetic...freeloading off the taxpayers is no easy task and anybody that thinks it is should give it a try and report back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
200. KC metro law enforcement is an OPPRESSIVE force to that community
...thank God they are the exception and not the rule
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #200
218. Not true. I grew up in Overland Park, and I never had an encounter with KCPD that wasn't a model of
professional behavior on the part of any police officer on that force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #218
232. How presumptuous of you. So, just because your dealings with them
were "models of professional behavior..." then they couldn't possibly be oppressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #232
240. How many encounters have *YOU* had with KCPD? That many, huh?.....
:eyes:

"Presumptuous," indeed....












Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #240
251. Your insinuation is laughable and quite childish.
Your presumption is just plain stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #251
275. "laughable," "quite childish," "plain stupid" - What a lovely set of logical, adult factual content
we got there! Hard to top that! :rofl:

Your reply makes my point for me: thanks! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
227. I don't see the problem they're felons
and this one one public agency sharing info with another. If you're getting drivers license they just don't hand it to no questions asked, they check make you allowed to have one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
229. After reading many of the replies on this thread, I'm apalled
that so many of you so willingly and so shortsightedly give up your privacy rights. You act as though it is no big deal for anyone to go through other people's private data.

But if it was your ox that was gored, I'm sure you'd be the first to yell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #229
238. Because food stamp applicants are attempting to get benefits that are paid for by everyone,
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 03:15 PM by slackmaster
Their applications become everyone's business.

I want full disclosure, with reasonable limits to protect aspects of applicants' lives that are truly private and not anyone else's business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #238
250. even the poor have a right to privacy. This is clear misuse
of private information and if you can't see that, then there is no further point to this conversation. You clearly must have been raised in a different era than me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #250
252. *PUBLIC* assistance is a strange place to divulge *PRIVATE* information
It takes a warrant absed on probable cause for the police to demand information on your employment status, income, tangible assets and whatnot.

But the food stamp office demands all those things or they turn you away.

just sayin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #250
256. The fact that they applied for food stamps is and must remain PUBLIC information
If not, what safeguards would prevent abuse of the system?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #229
254. Data is no longer private once you give it to the government.
Now if the govt were going through actual private data without a warrant (and the corresponding due process) that would be a privacy issue.

You can't willfully give information to the government then turn around and say that information can't be used against you due to expectation of privacy. I mean come on. Any such Constitutional challenge would last about 2 minutes.

If you want privacy don't give data to the government (or more realistically give a the most minimal amount of data possible).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #254
259. I once gave my phone number to a guy...AND HE CALLED ME!
Can you believe the nerve of him?!?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #259
269. That bastard!!!!! Oh, here's another one...
I once gave someone my address and he looked my street and house up on Google Maps!


When will the outrages end?



*falls back onto the chaise lounge with a case of the vapors*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #269
272. It gets worse
This guy I've been having hot monkey sex with for the last year and a half wants to marry me.

Like forever and ever and stuff!

Craziness!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #272
278. aughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
OK I can't even match that...


The world is going insane!!!

You have my sympathies...


:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #254
271. I did a search and came up with
the rights of food stamp applicants in my own state

Here it is...

http://www.gettingfoodstamps.org/rights.htm


People have lots of rights, but unless it's spelled out in black and white that any information they give will not be shared with law enforcement officials, then I, like you, believe they have no expectation that their data will be kept private from law enforcement.

One thing that's nice about Mass is that it does spell out that information won't be used against someone's immigration status.

Other than that, though...

nope. Felons are SOL.

Now I'm curious to see how many people will jump in to say that felons should have more of a right to privacy than (law abiding) immigrants do.

;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
236. The next thing you know they will be using felons' driver's license information to track them down
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #236
243. Imagine the police state!!!! Oh Noes!!!11111!!!!!!!!
Seriously, I've had to counsel clients before accepting a plea that their welfare bennies could be affected, because the courts/parole will report....yes, government agencies share. They always have, they always will.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #236
255. Or maybe using failed NICS (firearm background check) hits to catch criminals stupid enough ...
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 04:35 PM by Statistical
to try and get a gun at a retail location.

The horrors. Why oh why doesn't the Constitution protect the poor criminals from giving the government the very information which can be used against them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #255
257. I really wish they would do that
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
261. I'm curious. Did they have a search warrant?
I mean I am all for catching criminals, but, where's the 4th amendment in all this? Seems to me they just don't give a shit about their oath of defending the constitution. How sad.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #261
263. No, a search warrant is typically very specific about what is being looked for, and limited
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers...

The application, once turned in, is not the property of the applicant. It's a public record document, just like the arrest warrant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #263
279. or is it confidential information more like medical or schools?
I don't know, but there is lots of wording about privacy and not using the info for immigration etc. There is no notice of using the information for other purposes - in fact you have to sign authorizing release to employers.

Schools are prohibited from giving out information I don't see how this is different - hell there is info about minors on many applications. And that is another point - most applications are for entire households not individual felons - so if the police are getting access to that wow - that is way beyond stalking one criminal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #279
282. Would you be OK with disclosing to applicants that they would be checked for warrants?
The eligibility requirements for food stamps (at least here in CA) include authorizing the issuing agency to verify things like your bank account balances, to ensure that you are legally qualified. I'm quite sure that applicants knowingly consent to that kind of check, as well as signing under penalty of perjury that the information they have given is truthful.

Applicants cannot plausibly deny that they knew their bank records, employment records, and whatever else would be checked. Why not criminal arrest warrants too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #282
289. what I have a problem with poor people applying for help and the police
having access to that information. I have no problem with the assistance agency verifying the info given as long as it is done in a confidential manner and possible checking against a database provided to them by the authorities.

I have a problem with the attitude that because someone is poor and dares to ask for help they should be subjected to the kind of scrutiny real criminals get. It is humiliating and degrading and being poor in this country is already full of that. I have a problem with believing in certain constitutional fundamentals and ideals and seeing them trashed bit by bit by people that already have all they need in life and no idea what sort of barriers poor deal with constantly. I am angered that people are so infused with fear that they are so willing to give up their rights and MY rights! I am (once again) deeply saddened at the lack of empathy by many on this site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #289
294. I heard on the radio today that something like 1 in 8 US adults is getting food stamps
That tells me something is terribly, massively wrong with our economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #289
301. +10
Well said on both your posts Kali. +10


Peace,
Xicano
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #261
267. They didn't need a search warrant since
the people had already been charged with a felony and already had a felony warrant against them.

As for how they got charged with a felony in the first place, THAT was the time when they would have been safe from unlawful search or seizure and that would have been the time a search warrant would have been issued unless the suspect gave them permission to search their home, car, office, or person.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #261
277. No search warrant needed here.
You had voluntarily given info that is not privileged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
285. From the Privacy Act of 1974:

(b) Conditions of disclosure

No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be--
...
(7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought;

http://www.justice.gov/opcl/privstat.htm

Most states have privacy laws that mirror the federal law. I have no idea what they are in the state of Missouri, but I would be surprised if there wasn't a similar exclusion for law enforcement activities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supply Side Jesus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
286. Take care of your warrants then...
Dont steal...dont sell drugs...dont violate the terms of your parole...then you wont have to worry about warrants. :dunce:

Any thing for some rage against law enforcement. Pathetic.

I'm sure the victims of these crimes have some comfort from this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sl8 Donating Member (256 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
288. "Operation Talon"
from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/rego/update2/talon1.... :

Webster's dictionary defines "talon" as "the claw of a bird of prey or predatory animal." And, that's just what more nearly 6,000 fugitive felons think has grabbed them since the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and its state and local law enforcement partners, put "Operation Talon" into effect three years ago to locate and capture fugitives who are receiving Food Stamp Program benefits illegally.
<...>


"Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_an...
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/wm015.txt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #288
292. 6,000 people wanted for arrest (not convicted, if post above is correct) out of 41 MILLION
recipients. Is that worth sacrificing the privacy of the remaining 40,994,000 recipients? Is it even worth the time and effort to look?

a couple of definitions from the internets - http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-felony-warrant.htm

A felony warrant is a type of arrest warrant, issued by a court, that authorizes the apprehension and arrest of an individual suspected of committing a felony crime. A warrant is a legal document, issued in most cases by a judge after his consideration of evidence that has been provided by law enforcement officials. In particular, a felony warrant must include a signed affidavit of the crime committed, and the name of the accused.


so if the article is correct these are people wanted, not convicted and therefore all the "man up and turn yourself in" comments are questionable

Though what constitutes a felony crime can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, these are generally accepted to include violent crimes, such as rape and murder, as well as serious, non-violent crimes, like auto theft and robbery. Many so-called white collar crimes, which typically involve lying under oath and obstruction of justice, are also considered felonies. Typically a felony is a crime for which the punishment, or sentence, is a year or longer in prison. Examples of crimes that may vary between felony and misdemeanor depending on the laws of the jurisdiction in which the crime was comitted include illegal drug use, prostitution, and driving under the influence of a controlled substance.


so yes, often serious and/or violent, but not all felonies are particularly dangerous to those living in fear of the scary criminal food stamp recipients. And they are just wanted for arrest, they haven't been convicted of anything.

2,000/year

One has to wonder how many are guilty or even convicted. Yet over 40 million poor people should just suck it up and accept that giving personal information to a social services agency is tantamount to cc-ing it to the local Sheriff Joe.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
297. Anyone think this is a bad thing??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC